Last night, I think that I finally got it: why Donald Trump feels that way he does about mainstream media, particularly CNN. Fake news. It must have been. There was hardly anything that they were reporting that seemed to touch on the truth, at least how I see it.

Trump gave at best a pedestrian and at worst highly inflammatory and exploitative speech in his 2017 “non-State of the Union” address. There had been reports prior to the speech that he was going to show a little compassion towards undocumented Americans, particularly those who were living by the laws of America. Maybe he was going to follow up on his new discovery that health care policy is complicated and that solutions did not lie in slogans, accusations and oversimplifications.

There were some words that he spoke that might have indicated concern for African-Americans (on the last day of Black History Month) or Jews, as anti-Semitic acts continue across the nation, or even those who are poor and are in the greatest need of government support for a hand up. He had a few moments when he was platitudinous towards those among us who suffer the most, but he ruined that when he created an artificial and anointed class of victims as identified in his specious VOICE program (Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement.

It took forever for the speech to end, as the president seemed to Lenny Skutnik everyone in the House Gallery. The coup de grace was a moment that might have come out of Family Feud, but instead it was Trump egregiously falsifying the facts and duping much of the media into believing his false sincerity.

On the surface, Trump was doing something honorable, acknowledging the pain and grief of a woman whose husband had recently been killed in a covert operation in Yemen. What Trump did not tell the nation, though the mainstream media certainly knew, was that  William “Ryan” Owens had died on a problematic mission that was approved by Trump five days into his presidency. The Obama Administration had studied the mission but had not green-lighted it. The degree of serious consideration that Trump gave the “go” order is reflected by the fact that he made his decision while eating dinner rather than being in the Situation Room with knowledgeable advisors (assuming that any such people were in his administration at that time).

Trump did not mention that the plan went seriously wrong, in a somewhat similar fashion to President Jimmy Carter’s well-intentioned rescue mission into Iran in 1980 designed to free captured American hostages. The fact that Owens lost his life in this raid and that considerable treasure was lost while little was gained did not seem to faze Trump. There was no indication of self-reflection that perhaps he, Trump, bore a major measure of responsibility for Owens’ death.

Owens’ father was so upset about the circumstances of his son’s death, that as he told the Miami Herald in a recent interview, he did not want to meet Trump when the president attended Owens’ dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Feb. 1.

“I told them I didn’t want to make a scene about it, but my conscience wouldn’t let me talk to him,” Bill Owens told the Florida newspaper on Friday.

Owens also called for an investigation into his son’s death and additionally said he was troubled by Trump’s treatment of the Khans, a Gold Star family of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq.

So as Owens’ father chose to not be part of Trump wrapping the flag around himself, the president looked elsewhere to create a charade of concern and non-responsibility. Owens’ widow, Carryn, was naturally grief-stricken. It was an honor for her to sit in the gallery of the House during a presidential speech and have her husband’s life recognized. The bottom line to her was that her husband had died while on a military mission. He was not coming back. The president seemingly felt her pain.

So when the speech was over, I was waiting for the mainstream to put things in perspective. First I tuned  in to MSNBC. Brian Williams called the speech “soaring.” Rachel Maddow spoke next and said something eminently forgettable, not challenging a thing that Trump had said.

I switched to CNN and was glad when it was Van Jones’ turn to speak. I was expecting a dose of reality. Instead, Jones said about Trump’s tribute to Carryn Owens, “He became President of the United States in that moment, period. That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics.” Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord loved that and only David Axelrod brought a little moderation to the moment.

I went on-line to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and elsewhere to find some skepticism about Trump’s speech. All I read and saw was how “presidential” and temperate he was.

When the media buys into Trump, it becomes scary. Last night was a “long national nightmare for me.” I’m up now and hoping for better. Like everyone, Van Jones or Rachel Maddow are entitled to times when they are off their game. I say to them what 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern said in his campaign, “Come home, America.”

The post The night the media went South appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In April, 2013, Renee Shur wrote a wonderful piece in the Occasional Planet entitled, “Dear MSNBC: Grow up, already.” She truly nailed it with how the frequent supercilious and bombastic approach of its hosts undermined the communication of progressive news.

I have adopted Renee’s point of view and taken my own vacations from MSNBC. But when it came to the transgressions of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, I came back home to MSNBC because I knew that it was most equipped to dig into the story and deliver current, and often hidden, information on a daily basis. I was not disappointed with MSNBC, beginning with coverage of Christie’s lame press conference on January 9 and continuing to the present.

Most informative to me have been “Politics Nation with Al Sharpton,” “All In with Chris Hayes,” “The Rachel Maddow Show,” “Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and most particularly “Up with Steve Kornacki.” Each of the hosts seems to have toned down his or her shouting, and rather than being snarky they’ve been investigative. They have had live interviews with a series of New Jersey state officials as well as local journalists. Coming from Missouri, I was shocked at the intelligence, the knowledge-base and the critical thinking skills of these men and women.* Among the legislators and journalists who were interviewed and who filled in so many of the blanks in the story were:

• Barbara Buono, former NJ state senator and Christie opponent in 2013 gubernatorial race
• John Reitmeyer, State House Reporter for Bergen County Record
• Mark Sokolich, mayor of Ft. Lee
• John Wisniewski, Chairman of the House Transportation Committee
• Loretta Weinberg, State Senator whose district includes Ft. Lee
• Dawn Zimmer, mayor of Hoboken

This was quite a contrast to what I saw and heard in the mainstream press. For example, just before Christie was to deliver his “State of the State” address, CNN pundit Gloria Borger was asked what he (Christie) needed to do in his speech. She immediately said that he needed to regain the trust of the legislators as well as the people of New Jersey. What a pat and meaningless answer. What words can someone who has been an on-going liar say to convince an audience that he’s now telling the truth? Really there are none. If someone wants to regain trust, he or she must act in a trustworthy fashion – over an extended period of time. After former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned from the governorship, he spent several years below the radar, and in time gained new respect. Now, he is a leader of the progressive movement. In contrast, former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner resigned in disgrace, continued to engage in the type of behavior that forced his recognition, and then ran for mayor of the city of New York while all his transgression were still fresh in voters’ minds. He came in last in the field with single-digit support.

At this point, Christie has almost all of the Nixonian characteristics of someone who is going to fall, and fall hard. Back in the time of Watergate, CBS News was one of the main gatherers and reporters of all that Nixon had done and continued to do. Today, CBS is but a dot on the landscape, with short and often misleading mentions of “Bridge-gate.” In contrast, MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post and many local outlets in New Jersey are hot on the case. We’re most fortunate to have them doing so. While MSNBC has cut into my reading time, it does provide enough commercial time so that it’s not all lost. They’re doing a great job – stay cool, stay calm, and watch your ratings increase as you do so.

* I recognize that there are some outstanding legislators in Missouri; unfortunately they’re not in positions of power.

The post When it comes to Christie, MSNBC rises to the occasion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Dear Chris M., Rachel, and Lawrence at MSNBC:

Sorry old friends. You got me through a lot of hard times. But you’ve lost  me. I’m weaning myself away.  So here’s my confession.  It might help you  understand why it’s really, truly over.

In the run up to the 2012 election, I confess I indulged in a nightly dose of MSNBC for four straight, mind-numbing hours. From Chris to Ed to Rachel to Lawrence, it didn’t matter that most nights each one of you hashed over the same tidbit, embellishing it just enough with your own spicy sauce to make it sound as if you were the first and only one stirring the pot.

You could say I ate, drank, and slept the news. That’s what fear will do.  The dread I felt about a Mitt Romney presidency and the crazies of the Republican party gaining more sway than they already had kept me glued to your news casting.  You coddled my political leanings, and so I clung to you—my fellow progressives and your words—for dear life.

In the uncertainty of how the election would end, MSNBC became my lifeline.  MSNBC became my surrogate mommy—soothing me with a gentle touch to my fevered head while crooning that “yes, my dear, there is a tooth fairy”; and, “yes, my dear, she’s doing everything she can to get Obama elected.”

And this: “Yes, dear, there are still sane—nay, even thoughtful, rational people out there somewhere in the universe.” (Can you hear it?  This is where we cut to the mellifluous opening notes of Judy’s “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.”) And there was even more: “Yes, dear, there will be life after the next election, no matter who wins.” (That one I wasn’t so sure about.)

Let me be clear.  You news-junky hosts on MSNBC and your smarter-than-smart staffs were the only ones on national television highlighting stories and framing the news in a way that squared with my progressive viewpoint. And for that I was grateful.

But post-election, the thrill is gone.

I don’t know. Maybe I’ve gotten tired of the graphic gimmicks and silly bells and whistles that are there to seduce an audience decades younger than I.   Or maybe it’s that Chris M. interrupting the thought flow of yet another distinguished guest became too infuriating or the brilliance of Rachel’s mind and the circular construction of her solo arguments became too familiar and too predictable.  (Must familiarity always breed contempt?)

Or maybe it’s just that I thought that after you got over the first blush of finding yourselves on the big stage trumpeting the progressive line, you’d settle in to some good old-fashioned, serious journalism.  Of course, things haven’t turned out as I thought they might.

To be fair, there’s serious journalism underpinning your programs, but to this viewer the egos gone wild and self-indulgent strutting of wit and intelligence kick the serious box out from under all of you.

Edward R. Murrow you are not.

It was March 21, at 9:27 pm to be exact, when I knew it was over. That night, during a segment on Rachel’s show, the commentary encapsulated everything that’s turned me off MSNBC’s news coverage.

Something really important had happened that day.  Something really important that illustrated the cynical propaganda campaign that’s undermining what we know about our elected officials, the world, and the real workings of our democracy.

Of course, I know that you, Rachel, know.  But did you present the story with the seriousness it deserved?  The answer is no. First off, you were nearly squirming with delight to show us how clever you and your staff were for discovering and connecting the dots.  If I had you in front of me, I’d say: Stop touting your smarts.  It demeans your calling.

If you remember, on March 21 President Obama was in the midst of his first visit to Israel.  He was being shown, by live feed, receiving Israel’s highest honor as a true friend and trusted ally. As Rachel and her staff discovered, at the same time, Fox News was running a program excoriating Obama as the archenemy of Israel.

The contrast between reality and the imaginary world of Fox could not have been more stark. But Rachel, you sneered and giggled.  Your demeanor said, “You’re in on the joke, viewers, can you believe this?  Those wild and crazy, out of it guys at Fox. Those wild and crazy Republican wing nuts.  You and me, we’re educated, smart, with it, not like those bozos.”  (Hear the sound of laughter.)

That kind of delivery might make you, Rachel, your staff, and your audience (me, included) feel good about what we believe to be our superior knowledge, education, and nuanced understanding of politics, but it’s not journalism.  And it’s not what we need right now.

And Rachel, you’re not alone.  Lawrence and guests indulge in barely disguised snickers during a nightly Rush Limbaugh segment.  You might say that laughing at Rush is the best medicine. (Remember how Mel Brooks said the same about another demagogue?) But an awful lot of people take Rush very, very seriously—to their detriment and ours. After all, Rush’s lies are why we have people in need who believe that Obamacare is a Frankenstein (as someone recently referred to it in my local newspaper).

So I say, grow up MSNBC hosts. Maybe there’s still time to win back this viewer. Focus a little less on glorifying your own opinions and displaying your self-satisfaction and more on giving us the facts. Make your hours less about you and more about the news. Forget about entertainment and start creating some grown-up news casts because that’s what we—and our democracy—really need.

The post Dear MSNBC: Grow up, already appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Progressives, can you imagine Rachel Maddow shying away from a story high on the liberal agenda. I couldn’t until the evening of Friday, December 14,  following the horrendous massacre at SandyHook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. I had watched CNN much of the day following the shooting and then the CBS Evening News. They talked about the terrible tragedy; the pain and suffering of the families; the shame on America factor. What they didn’t directly talk about was gun control. It was as if it was a hot potato, and they didn’t want to touch it.

None of that surprised me, although it did disappoint me. However, I was sure that Rachel Maddow would address the issue head on – at the top of her evening show. No such luck. She started off reading a series of quotes about how horrible the disaster was. Because she often takes a circuitous route to cleverly get to her main point, I still had hope that she would make the issue of gun control the top story of the evening. It didn’t happen that way. It wasn’t until the second half of the show that she dedicated a few minutes to perhaps the most important factor of the incident; that we have way too many guns in our society, and we have shied away from enacting legislation to limit them. We have even been skittish about talking about guns. However, I thought that she would – in a big way. She didn’t. To her credit, she began her next show on Monday, December 17 with extensive examination of the gun control issue.

It wasn’t until the next morning that I found a public figure directly addressing the gun control issue. Marian Wright Edelman, director of the Children’s Defense Fund, made it clear:

Once again we are faced with unspeakable horror from gun violence and once again we are reminded that there is no safe harbor for our children. How young do the victims have to be and how many children need to die before we stop the proliferation of guns in our nation and the killing of innocents? The most recent statistics reveal 2,694 children and teens were killed by gunfire in 2010; 1,773 of them were victims of homicide and 67 of these were elementary school-age children. If those children and teens were still alive they would fill 108 classrooms of 25 each. Since 1979 when gun death data were first collected by age, a shocking 119,079 children and teens have been killed by gun violence. That is more child and youth deaths in America than American battle deaths in World War I (53,402) or in Vietnam (47,434) or in the Korean War (33,739) or in the Iraq War (3,517). Where is our anti-war movement to protect children from pervasive gun violence here at home?

Howard Kurtz of the Daily Beast later told us:

Gun-rights activists had remained largely quiet on the issue since Friday’s shooting, all but one declining to appear on the Sunday talk shows.

David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” said NBC invited all 31 “pro-gun” senators to appear on Sunday’s show, and all 31 declined. All eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were unavailable or unwilling to appear on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” host Bob Schieffer said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights’ activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.

“I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said.

Anne Flaherty of the Huffington Post wrote, three days after the shooting:

On Monday, Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, said it was time to discuss gun policy and move toward action on gun regulation. The conservative West Virginia Democrat said Monday he agrees with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has advocated banning the sale of assault weapons.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she will introduce legislation next year to ban new assault weapons, as well as big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets.

“It can be done,” Feinstein told NBC’s “Meet the Press” of reinstating the ban despite deep opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association and similar groups.

Bloomberg said Obama could use executive powers to enforce existing gun laws, as well as throw his weight behind legislation like Feinstein’s.

President Obama’s initial reaction was to dance around the issue of gun control. Perhaps this is necessary because he doesn’t want to give Republicans any additional reason to be upset with him and to shy away from a reasonable compromise on the Fiscal Cliff issue. He is well aware of the problems with guns, after three years as a community organizer in Chicago and now a witness to the record-breaking level of gun violence in his home town. While he may have reasons to shy away from the issue, at least in the short run, the media has no reason. Thanks to Marian Wright Edelman and others who had the courage to open the dialogue. Shame on CNN and CBS and probably a number of other outlets in the mainstream news.

The post It took too long to start the gun control debate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The federal Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Ironically, it passed just a year after Republican Senator Barry Goldwater’s launched his southern strategy in his race against Lyndon Johnson for president. Johnson’s commitment to civil rights as well as his Great Society meant that progressives would have very little strength in the South. However, as more and more African-Americans became enfranchised to vote, progressives achieved a number of important victories in the south, albeit primarily on the state and local level.

Recent pronouncements by Republican leaders, including presidential candidates, clearly indicate that they have not accepted the most progressive victories in the New Deal, Great Society, and as recent as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of these areas is voting rights. On Tuesday, March 13, Rachel Maddow interviewed Rev. Al Sharpton about a variety of issues related to voting rights. Below is a key excerpt from the interview. Also included is a link to the actual interview. Rachel Maddow’s introduction to the topic is about five minutes long; the remaining five minutes in the clip contain her interview with Rev. Sharpton.

Maddow: With the challenges to voting rights, in Alabama, Mississippi, even Wisconsin. etc., is it 1965 all over again?

Sharpton: I think that it’s the spirit of 1965. I think that we’ve gone from the poll tax to now photo ID. It’s like we’ve gone from Jim Crow to James Crow, Jr., Esquire. It’s more polished, more sophisticated, but the results are the same. If you an impact disproportionately on poor people, working class people, students who don’t have this kind of photo ID, seniors, and minorities, it’s designed to stifle the vote. Well that’s what Dr. King and others fought against in 1965 where they just outright wouldn’t let people vote. Here you’re putting an impediment there but you know what the results will be. It’s “fixing” a problem that doesn’t exist; there is no massive voter fraud. There was 0.0003% according to the Bush Administration of fraud that they found. So why are we changing the law when there’s no reason to change ID? We’re not against ID. Why not use the same kind of ID they used when Reagan ran or Clinton ran or both Bushes ran? Why all of a sudden now do you need it? You’re only see it [concern about voter ID] in the general election where they are targeting, trying to make it difficult for certain people who are trying to vote.

Maddow: Texas almost made it too easy to see the partisan dimensions here. You could argue that ID is not about race, even though it has a disproportionate racial impact; that’s not what it was about; you can make that same argument about the poll tax back in the day, but Texas did this nice thing where they decided that the voter ID that would count includes your license to carry a gun but not your student ID.

Sharpton: In Georgia, you can use your ID from certain state universities but not from certain historically black colleges. So I mean they have not been very subtle about it and I think that our job is to inform the public and I think that the Justice Department’s job is right; they have to pre-clear where there is a disproportionate impact on minority voters. It is ironic to me and insulting that we would as a nation celebrate Dr. King and then undermine what Dr. King is being celebrated for. One of them is voting rights.

INTERVIEW:

The post Civil rights: How different is today from 1965? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The ability to sell a contradiction is sometimes the measure of a man or woman, at least when it comes to success in politics.  But nowhere does such artifice cry out for our attention more than when displayed by candidates for our highest elected offices.  The habit of disassociating what one says from what one does has turned our electoral process into a game of rope a dope.  And too often, when the dust of election season settles into the daily grind of lawmaking, the voters are no longer interested enough to hold politicians accountable when their actions fall short or simply diverge from their rhetoric.

This is not simply a matter of broken campaign promises that waft just out of our reach like suspended election night confetti.  Many of today’s politicians are adept at assigning certain aspirational characteristics to themselves or their party that just don’t ring true when compared with the public record of accomplishment or incompetence and everything in between.  A third variation on the theme is the art of condemning the behavior of one’s opposition while shamelessly indulging in the same conduct.  All of these behaviors are duplicitous and none should go without challenge when they are acted out by those holding the public trust.

For a recent example of Alice Through the Looking-Glass logic in political discourse, take Minnesota Governor and probable 2012 presidential contender Tim Pawlenty’s recent excoriation of President Obama to stop making apology tours.  The timing of the remark suggested it was in response to the President’s efforts to right the course of a domestic agenda that had been tossed too long and hard on the tide of an intractable healthcare debate and to refocus on the priorities of unemployment and economic growth.  Governor Pawlenty and others on the right are in no mood for being patient.

But, as it turns out, the Governor is infinitely more gracious in handling the remorseful utterances of his GOP colleagues who are still reeling from the reversal of fortune they suffered in 2008.  Lately, when asked whether Republicans should still be trusted with the mantle of fiscal conservatism, even as the nation struggles to put its financial house in order after the Republicans sponsored eight years of Fat Tuesday on Wall Street, Pawlenty offers up the results of an apology tour of his own.  According to the Governor, he’s met with GOP leaders around the country who all say that they have learned their lesson on excessive spending and won’t do it again if given the chance.  A caravan of contrition is far better than an apology tour.

While it remains to be seen whether voters will be as quick to forgive as Pawlenty’s group of apologists hope, there are plenty of men and women still in the ranks of incumbency that seem to be enjoying unearned good will.  While Congress’s favorable ratings indicate almost universal distaste for the legislature as a whole, nearly all Congressmen and Senators fare much better as individual representatives.  Among other privileges of office that help cultivate good will at home are well timed victory laps through the home state or district bearing goodies from the Washington.

But beware the contradiction.  For a case in point, we in Missouri need look no further than across the Mississippi where Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois, 27, enjoys the spotlight as our nation’s youngest legislator.  As the freshest face in the minority party and potential thorn in the side of our President from the same state, Congressman Schock has been favored with an abundance of committee appointments to which he would not otherwise be entitled under the rules of seniority and has been named Deputy Minority Whip.

As further evidence of his party’s favor, Congressman Schock was trotted out on Valentine’s Day for an appearance on Meet the Press. In discussing his resistance to the current healthcare reform plan, Schock explained he was representing the views of the majority of Americans.  While the statement was seemingly excused as so much partisan puffery, moments later his co-panelist Rachel Maddow called the Congressman out on the two faces he wears when it comes to pork barrel spending.  Seems Congressman Schock’s Washington beltway persona had voted against a stimulus bill on grounds it contained too much earmarked spending, while populist Congressman Schock ran back to Illinois to celebrate the award of a green technology research grant made possible by the bill he’d just voted against.  The fact that the public display of largesse occurred on a community college campus may have permitted it to fly under the radar of cynicism in the short run, but Maddow was not going to let such rank hypocrisy lie.  First he decried such spending as imposing long term debt to be paid in perpetuity by his constituents and their kids, then he followed the trail of stimulus funds right back home to get his picture taken without red ink on his hands.

It is critical that voters remain engaged throughout the processes by which we are governed and not just the processes by which we choose who will do it.  For even the most earnestly intentioned voters, elections can become an empty exercise when we pay too little attention to the words, actions and votes of our Congressmen and Senators in between elections.  As much as possible, we should use technology to follow our representatives to the Capitol so that we can talk to each other and to them about how well or how poorly they are honoring the public trust of their constituents.  A couple of excellent resources are http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/ and http://votesmart.org/ There you can check the voting records of your Congressmen and Senators and see how well their votes reflect opinion at home among constituents and how well they match statements or actions of the representatives in the public record.  We can’t afford to continue letting contradiction be a commodity that is sold to voters in order to get to Washington and then traded there at our expense.

The post We all live in glass houses but some don’t realize it appeared first on Occasional Planet.